V. I. Lenin

Letter to Comrades

Written:October 17 (30), 1917First Published:Published inRabochy PutNos. 40, 41 and 42, November 1, 2 and 3
      (October 19, 20 and 21), 1917  Published according to the
      newspaper  textSource:Lenin’sCollected
      Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, Volume 26, 1972,
      pp. 195-215Translated:Yuri Sdobnikov and George
      Hanna, Edited by George HannaTranscription & HTML Markup:Charles
      Farrell and David WaltersOnline Version:Lenin Internet ArchiveNovember,
      2000

We are living in a time that is so critical, events are moving
      at such incredible speed that a publicist, placed by the will of
      fate somewhat aside from the mainstream of history, constantly
      runs the risk either of being late or proving uninformed,
      especially if some time elapses before his writings appear in
      print. Although I fully realise this, I must nevertheless
      address this letter to the Bolsheviks, even at the risk of its
      not being published at all, for the vacillations against which I
      deem it my duty to warn in the most decisive manner are of an
      unprecedented nature and may have a disastrous effect on the
      Party, the movement of the international proletariat, and the
      revolution. As for the danger of being too late, I will prevent
      it by indicating the nature and date of the information I
      possess.

It was not until Monday morning, October 16, that I saw a
      comrade who had on the previous day participated in a very
      important Bolshevik gathering in Petrograd,  and who informed me
      in detail of the discussion.[1]The subject of discussion was that same
      question of the uprising discussed by the Sunday papers of all
      political trends. The gathering represented all that is most
      influential in all branches of Bolshevik work in the
      capital. Only a most insignificant minority of the gathering,
      namely, all in all two comrades, took a negative stand. The
      arguments which those comrades advanced are so weak, they are a
      manifestation of such an astounding confusion, timidity, and
      collapse of all the fundamental ideas of Bolshevism and
      proletarian revolutionary internationalism that it is not easy
      to discover an explanation for such shameful vacillations. The
      fact, however, remains, and since the revolutionary party has no
      right to tolerate vacillations on such a serious question, and
      since this pair of comrades, who have scattered their principles
      to the winds, might cause some confusion, it is necessary to
      analyse their arguments, to expose their vacillations, and to
      show how shameful they are. The following lines are an attempt
      to do this.

"We have no majority among the people, and without this
      condition the uprising is hopeless. . . ."

People who can say this are either distorters of the truth or
      pedants who want an advance guarantee that throughout the whole
      country the Bolshevik Party has received exactly one-half of the
      votes plus one, this they want at all events, without taking the
      least account of the real circumstances of the
      revolution. History has never given such a guarantee, and is
      quite unable to give it in any revolution. To make such a demand
      is jeering at the audience, and is nothing but a cover to hide
      one's ownflightfrom reality.

For reality shows us clearly that it was after the July days
      that the majority of the people began quickly to go over to the
      side of the Bolsheviks. This was demonstrated first by the
      August 20 elections in Petrograd, even before the Kornilov
      revolt, when the Bolshevik vote rose from 20 to 33 per cent in
      the city not including the suburbs, and then by the district
      council elections in Moscow in September, when the Bolshevik
      vote rose from 11 to 49.3 per cent (one Moscow comrade, whom I
      saw recently, told me that the correct figure is 51 per
      cent). This was proved by the new elections to the Soviets. It
      was proved by the fact that a majority of the peasant Soviets,
      their "Avksentyev" central Soviet notwithstanding, has expressed
      itselfagainstthe coalition . To be against the
      coalition meansin practiceto follow the
      Bolsheviks. Furthermore, reports from the front prove more
      frequently and more definitely that the soldiers are passingen masseover to the side or the Bolsheviks with ever
      greater determination, in spite of the malicious slanders and
      attacks by the Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik leaders,
      officers, deputies, etc., etc.

Last, but not least, the most outstanding fact of present day
      Russian life isthe revolt of the peasantry. This shows
      objectively, not by words but by deeds, that the people are
      going over to the side of the Bolsheviks. But the fact remains,
      notwithstanding the lies of the bourgeois press and its
      miserable yes-men of the "vacillating"Novaya Zhizncrowd, who shout  about riots and anarchy. The peasant movement
      in Tambov Gubernia[2]was an uprising both in the physical
      and political sense, an uprising that has yielded such splendid
      political results as, in the first place, agreement to transfer
      the land to the peasants. It is not for nothing that the
      Socialist-Revolutionary rabble, includingDyelo Naroda,
      who are frightened by the uprising, nowscreamabout
      the need to transfer the land to the peasants. Here is apracticaldemonstration of the correctness of
      Bolshevism and of its success. It proved to be impossible to
      "teach" the Bonapartists and their lackeys in the Pre-parliament
      otherwise than by an uprising.

This is a fact and facts are stubborn things. And such a factual
      "argument"in favourof an uprising is stronger than
      thousands of "pessimistic" evasions on the part of confused and
      frightened politicians.

If the peasant uprising were not an event of nation-wide
      political import, the Socialist-Revolutionary lackeys from the
      Pre-parliament would not be shouting about the need to hand over
      the land to the peasants.

Another splendid political and revolutionary consequence of the
      peasant uprising, as already noted inRabochy Put, is
      the delivery of grain to the railway stations in Tambov
      Gubernia. Here is another "argument" for you, confused
      gentlemen, an argument in favour of the uprising as the only
      means to save the country from the famine that is knocking at
      our door and from a crisis of unheard-of dimensions. While the
      Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik betrayers of the people
      are grumbling, threatening, writing resolutions, promising to
      feed the hungry by convening the Constituent Assembly, the
      people are beginning to solve the bread problemBolshevik-fashion,by rebellingagainst the
      landowners, capitalists, and speculators.

Even thebourgeoispress, evenRusskaya Volya,
      was compelled to admit the wonderful results ofsucha
      solution 
      (the only real solution) of the bread problem, by publishing
      information to the effect that the railway stations in Tambov
      Gubernia were swamped with grain. . . .And this after the
      peasants had revolted!

To doubt now that the majority of the people are following and
      will follow the Bolsheviks is shameful vacillation and in
      practice is the abandoning ofallthe principles of
      proletarian revolutionism, the complete renunciation of
      Bolshevism.

"We are not strong enough to seize power, and the bourgeoisie is
      not strong enough to hinder the convening of the Constituent
      Assembly."

The first part of this argument is a simple paraphrase of the
      preceding one. It does not gain in strength or power of
      conviction, when the confusion of its authors and their fear of
      the bourgeoisie are expressed in terms of pessimism in respect
      of the workers and optimism in respect of the bourgeoisie. If
      the officer cadets and the Cossacks say that they will fight
      against the Bolsheviks to the last drop of blood, this deserves
      full credence; if, however, the workers and soldiers at hundreds
      of meetings express full confidence in the Bolsheviks and affirm
      their readiness to defend the transfer of power to the Soviets,
      then it is "timely" to recall that voting is one thing and
      fighting another!

If you argue like that, of course, you "refute" the possibility
      of an uprising. But, we may ask, in what way does this
      peculiarly orientated "pessimism" with its peculiar urge differ
      from a political shift to the side of the bourgeoisie?

Look at the facts. Remember the Bolshevik declarations, repeated
      thousands of times and now "forgotten" by our pessimists. We
      have said thousands of times that the Soviets of Workers' and
      Soldiers' Deputies are a force, that they are the vanguard of
      the revolution, that theycantake power. Thousands of
      times have we upbraided the Mensheviks and
      Socialist-Revolutionaries for phrase-mongering about the
      "plenipotentiary organs of democracy" accompanied byfearto transfer power to the Soviets.

And what has the Kornilov revolt proved? It has proved that the
      Soviets are a real force.

And, now, after this has been proved by experience, by facts, we
      are expected to repudiate Bolshevism, deny ourselves, and say
      that we are not strong enough (although the Soviets of Petrograd
      and Moscow and a majority of the provincial Soviets are on the
      side of the Bolsheviks)! Are these not shameful vacillations? As
      a matter of fact, our "pessimists" are abandoning the slogan of
      "All Power to the Soviets", though theyare afraidto
      admit it.

How can it be proved that the bourgeoisie are not strong enough
      to hinder the calling of the Constituent Assembly?

If the Sovietshave not the strengthto overthrow the
      bourgeoisie, thismeansthe latter are strong enough to
      prevent the convocation of the Constituent Assembly, for there
      is nobody else to stop them. To trust the promises of Kerensky
      and Co., to trust the resolutions of the servile
      Pre-parliament—is this worthy of a member of a proletarian
      party and a revolutionary?

Not only has the bourgeoisiestrength enoughto hinder
      the convocation of the Constituent Assembly if the present
      government is not overthrown, but it can also achieve this
      resultindirectlyby surrendering Petragrad to the
      Germans, laying open the front, increasing lockouts, and
      sabotaging deliveries of foodstuffs. It has been proved byfactsthat the bourgeoisie have already been partly
      doing this, which means that they are capable of doing itto
      the full extent, if the workers and soldiers do not
      overthrow them.

"The Soviets must be a revolver pointed at the head of the
      government with the demand to convene the Constituent Assembly
      and stop all Kornilovite plots."

This is how far one of the two sad pessimists has gone.

He had to go that far, for to reject the uprising isthe
      same asrejecting the slogan "All Power to the Soviets".

Of course, a slogan is "not sacred"; we all agree to that. But
      then why hasno oneraised the question of changing
      this slogan (in the same way as I raised the question after the
      July days[See present edition, Vol. 25,"On
      Slogans", pp. 185-193.—Ed.])? Why beafraidto say it openly, when the Party, since
      September, has been discussing the question of the uprising,
      which is nowthe only wayto realise the slogan "All
      Power to the Soviets".

There is no way for our sad pessimists to turn. A renunciation
      of the uprising is a renunciation of the transfer of power to
      the Soviets and implies a "transfer" of all hopes and
      expectations to the kind bourgeoisie, which has "promised" to
      convoke the Constituent Assembly.

Is it so difficult to understand that oncepoweris in
      the hands of the Soviets, the Constituent Assembly and its
      success areguaranteed? The Bolsheviks have said so
      thousands of times andno onehas ever attempted to
      refute it. Everybody has recognised this "combined type", but to
      smuggle in arenunciationof the transfer of power to
      the Soviets under cover of the words "combined type", to smuggle
      it insecretlywhilefearingto renounce our
      slogan openly is a matter for wonder. Is there any parliamentary
      term to describe it?

Someone has very pointedly retorted to our pessimist: "Is it a
      revolver with no cartridges?" If so, it means going over
      directly to the Lieberdans, who have declared the Soviets a
      "revolver" thousands of times and have deceived the people
      thousands of times. Forwhile they were in controlthe
      Soviets proved to be worthless.

If, however, it is to be a revolver "with cartridges", this
      cannot mean anything buttechnicalpreparation for an
      uprising; the cartridges have to be procured, the revolver has
      to be loaded—and cartridges alone will not be enough.

Either go over to the side of the Lieberdans andopenlyrenounce the slogan "All Power to the Soviets", or start the
      uprising.

There is no middle course.

"The bourgeoisie cannot surrender Petrograd to the Germans,
      although Rodzyanko wants to, for the fighting is done not by the
      bourgeoisie, but by our heroic sailors."

This argument again reduces itself to the same "optimism"in
      respect of the bourgeoisiewhich is fatally manifested at
      every step by those who are pessimistic about the revolutionary
      forces and capabilities of the proletariat.

The fighting is done by the heroic sailors,butthis
      did not preventtwoadmirals fromdisappearingbefore the capture of Esel!

That is a fact and facts are stubborn things. The facts prove
      that admiralsare capableof treachery no less than
      Kornilov. It is an undisputed fact that Field Headquarters has
      not been reformed, and that the commanding staff is Kornilovite
      in composition.

If the Kornilovites (with Kerensky at their head, for he is also
      a Kornilovite)wantto surrender Petrograd, they can do
      it in two or even in three ways.

First, they can, through an act of treachery on the part of the
      Kornilovite officers, open the northern land front.

Second, they can "agree" on freedom of action for the entire
      German navy, which isstrongerthan we are; they can
      agree both with the German and the British
      imperialists. Moreover, the admirals who have disappeared may
      have delivered theplansto the Germansas
      well.

Third, they can, by means of lockouts, and by sabotaging the
      delivery of food, bring our troops to completedesperationand impotence.

Not a single one of these three ways can be denied. The facts
      have proved that the bourgeois-Cossack party of Russia has
      already knocked at all three doors and has tried to force open
      each of them.

What follows? It follows that we have no right towaituntil the bourgeoisie strangle the revolution.

Experience has proved that Rodzyanko's wishes are no
      trifle. Rodzyanko is a man of affairs. Rodzyanko is backed bycapital. This is beyond dispute. Capital is tremendous
      strength as long as the proletariat do not have power.For
      decades, Rodzyanko has faithfully and truly carried out the
      policies of capital.

What follows? It follows that to vacillate on the question of an
      uprising as the only means to save the revolution means to sink
      into that cowardly credulity in the bourgeoisie which is
      half-Lieberdan, Socialist-Revolutionary-Menshevik and half
      "peasant-like" unquestioning credulity, 
      against which the Bolsheviks have been battling most of all.

Either fold your idle arms on your empty chest, wait and swear
      "faith" in the Constituent Assembly until Rodzyanko and Co. have
      surrendered Petrograd and strangled the revolution or start an
      uprising. There is no middle course.

Even the convocation of the Constituent Assembly does not, in
      itself, change anything, for no "constituting", no voting by any
      arch-sovereign assembly will have any effect on the famine, or
      on Wilhelm. Both the convocation and thesuccessof the
      Constituent Assembly depend upon the transfer of power to the
      Soviets. This old Bolshevik truth is being proved by reality
      ever more strikingly and ever morecruelly.

"We are becoming stronger every day. We can enter the
      Constituent Assembly as a strong opposition; why should we stake
      everything?. . ."

This is the argument of a philistine who has "read" that the
      Constituent Assembly is being called, and who trustingly
      acquiesces in the most legal, most loyal, most constitutional
      course.

It is a pity, however, thatwaitingfor the Constituent
      Assembly does not solve either the question of famine or the
      question of surrendering Petrograd . This "trifle" is forgotten
      by the naïve or the confused or those who have allowed
      themselves to be frightened.

The famine will not wait. The peasant uprising did not wait. The
      war will not wait. The admirals who have disappeared did not
      wait.

Will the famine agree to wait, because we Bolsheviksproclaimfaith in the convocation of the Constituent
      Assembly? Will the admirals who have disappeared agree to wait?
      Will the Maklakovs and Rodzyankos agree to stop the lockouts and
      the sabotaging of grain deliveries, or to denounce the secret
      treaties with the British and the German imperialists?

Thisis what the arguments of the heroes of
      "constitutional illusions" and parliamentary cretinism amount
      to. The living reality disappears, and what remains is only apaperdealing with the convocation of the Constituent Assembly; there
      is nothing left-but to hold elections.

And blind people are still wondering why hungry people and
      soldiers betrayed by generals and admirals are indifferent to
      the elections! Oh, wiseacres!

"Were the Kornilovites to start again, we would show them! But
      why should we take risks and start?"

This is extraordinarily convincing and revolutionary. History
      does not repeat itself, but if we turn ourbackson it,
      contemplate the first Kornilov revolt and repeat: "If only the
      Kornilovites would start"—if we do that, what excellent
      revolutionary strategy it would be. How much like a waiting game
      it is! Maybe the Kornilovites will start again at an inopportune
      time. Isn't this a "weighty" argument? What kind of an earnest
      foundation for a proletarian policy is this?

And what if the Kornilovites of the second draft will have
      learned a thing or two? What if theywaitfor the
      hunger riots to begin, for the front to be broken through, for
      Petrograd to be surrendered,before they begin? What
      then?

It is proposed that we build the tactics of the proletarian
      party on the possibility of the Kornilovites' repeating one of
      their old errors!

Let us forget all that was being andhas been
      demonstratedby the Bolsheviks a hundred times, all that
      the six months' history of our revolution has proved, namely,
      that there isnoway out, that there is no objective
      way out and can be noneexcepta dictatorship of the
      Kornilovites or a dictatorship of the proletariat. Let us forget
      this, let us renounce all this and wait! Wait for what? Wait for
      a miracle, for the tempestuous and catastrophic course of events
      from April 20 to August 29 to be succeeded (due to the
      prolongation of the war and the spread of famine) by a peaceful,
      quiet, smooth, legal convocation of the Constituent Assembly and
      by a fulfilment of its most lawful decisions. Here you have the
      "Marxist" tactics! Wait, ye hungry! Kerensky has promised to
      convene the Constituent Assembly.

"There is really nothing in the international situation that
      makes it obligatory for us to act immediately, we would be more
      likely to damage the cause of a socialist revolution in the
      West, if we were to allow ourselves to be shot. . . ."

This argument is truly magnificent:Scheidemann"himself", Renaudel  "himself" would not be able to "manipulate"
      more cleverly the workers' sympathies for the international
      socialist revolution!

Just think of it: under devilishly difficult conditions, having
      butoneLiebknecht (and he in prison) with no
      newspapers, with no freedom of assembly, with no Soviets, withallclasses of the population, including every
      well-to-do peasant, incredibly hostile to the idea of
      internationalism, with the imperialist big, middle, and petty
      bourgeoisie splendidly organised—the Germans, i.e., the
      German revolutionary internationalists, the German workers
      dressed in sailors' jackets, started a mutiny in the navy with
      one chance in a hundred of winning.

But we, with dozens of papers at our disposal, freedom of
      assembly, amajorityin the Soviets, we, the best
      situated proletarian internationalists in the world, should
      refuse to support the German revolutionaries by our uprising. We
      ought to reason like the Scheidemanns and Renaudels, that it is
      most prudent not to revolt, for if we are shot, then the world
      will lose such excellent, reasonable, ideal internationalists!

Let us prove how reasonable we are. Let us pass a resolution of
      sympathy with theGerman insurrectionists, and let us
      renounce theinsurrectionin Russia. This would be
      genuine, reasonable internationalism. Imagine how fast world
      internationalism would blossom forth, if the same wise policy
      were to triumpheverywhere!

The war has fatigued and tormented the workers of all countries
      to the utmost. Outbursts are becoming frequent in Italy, Germany
      and Austria. Wealonehave Soviets of Workers' and
      Soldiers' Deputies. Let us thenkeep on waiting. Let us
      betray the German internationalists as we are betraying the
      Russian peasants, who, not by words but by deeds, by their
      uprising against the landowners, appeal to us to rise against
      Kerensky's government. . . .

Let the clouds of the imperialist conspiracy of the capitalists
      of all countries who are ready to strangle the Russian
      revolution gather—we shall wait patiently until we are
      strangledby the ruble! Instead of attacking the
      conspirators and breaking their ranks by a victory of the
      Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, let us wait for the
      Constituent Assembly, where all international plots will be
      vanquished byvoting, provided Kerensky and Rodzyanko
      conscientiously convene the Constituent Assembly. Have we any
      right to doubt the honesty of Kerensky and Rodzyanko?

"But 'everyone' is against us! We are isolated; the Central
      Executive Committee, the Menshevik internationalists, theNovaya Zhiznpeople, and the Left
      Socialist-Revolutionaries have been issuing and will continue to
      issue appeals against us!"

A crushing argument. Up to now we have been mercilessly
      scourging the vacillators for their vacillations.By so
      doing, we have won the sympathies of the people.By so
      doing, we have won over the Soviets, without which the
      uprising could not be safe, quick, and sure. Now let us use the
      Soviets which we have won over in orderto move into the
      camp of the vacillators. What a splendid career for
      Bolshevism!

The whole essence of the policy of the Lieberdans and Chernovs,
      and also of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks,
      consists invacillations. The Left
      Socialist-Revolutionaries and Menshevik internationalists have
      tremendous political importance as anindicationof the
      fact that themasses are moving to the left. Two such
      facts as the passing of some 40 per cent of both Mensheviks and
      Socialist-Revolutionaries into the camp of the Left, on the one
      hand, and the peasant uprising, on the other, are clearly and
      obviously interconnected.

But it is the very character of this connection that reveals the
      abysmal spinelessness of those who have now under taken to
      whimper over the fact that the Central Executive Committee,
      which has rotted away, or the vacillating Left
      Socialist-Revolutionaries and Co., have come out against us. Forthesevacillations of the petty-bourgeois
      leaders—the Martovs, Kamkovs, Sukhanovs and Co.—have
      to be compared to theuprisingof the peasants. Here is
      arealisticpolitical comparison. With whom shall we
      go? Should it be with the vacillating handfuls of Petrograd
      leaders, who have expressedindirectlytheleftward
      swingof the masses, but who, ateverypolitical
      turn, have sbamefully whimpered, vacillated, run to ask
      forgiveness of the Lieberdans, Avksentyevs and Co.,or with
      those masses that have moved to the left?

Thus, and only thus, can the question be presented.

Because the peasant uprising has been betrayed by the Martovs,
      Kamkovs, and Sukhanovs, we, the workers' party of revolutionary
      internationalists, are asked to betray it, too. This is what the
      policy of blaming the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries and
      Menshevik internationalists reduces itself to.

But we have said that to help the vacillating, we must stop
      vacillating ourselves. Have those "nice" Left petty-bourgeois
      democrats not "vacillated" in favour of the coalition? In the
      long run we succeeded in making them follow us because we
      ourselves did not vacillate. Events have shown we are right.

These gentlemen by their vacillations have always held back the
      revolution; We alone have saved it. Shall we now give up, when
      the famine is knocking at the gates of Petrograd and Rodzyanko
      and Co. are preparing to surrender the city?!

"But we have not even firm connections with the railwaymen and
      the postal employees. Their official representatives are thePlansons.And can we win without the post office and without railways?"

Yes, yes, the Plansons here, the Lieberdans there. What
      confidence have themassesshown them? Have we not
      always shown that those leaders betrayed themasses?
      Did the masses not turn away from those leaderstowards
      us, both at the elections in Moscow and at the elections to
      the Soviets? Or perhaps the mass of railway and postal employees
      are not starving! Or do not strike against Kerensky and Co.?

"Did we have connections with these unions before February 28?"
      one comrade asked a pessimist. The latter replied by pointing
      out that the two revolutions could not be compared. But this
      reply onlystrengthensthe position of the one who
      asked the question. For it is the Bolsheviks who have spoken
      thousands of times about prolonged preparation for theproletarianrevolutionagainst the bourgeoisie(and they have not spoken about it in order to forget their
      words when the decisive moment is at hand). The political and
      economic life of the unions of postal and telegraph employees
      and railwaymen is characterised by the veryseparationof the proletarian elements of the masses from the
      petty-bourgeois and bourgeois upper layer. It is not absolutely
      necessary to secure "connections" with one or the other union
      before hand; what matters is that only a victory of a
      proletarian and peasant uprisingcansatisfy themassesboth of the army of railwaymen and of postal and
      telegraph employees.

"There is only enough bread in Petrograd for two or three
      days. Can we give bread to the insurrestionists?"

This is one of a thousand sceptical remarks (the sceptics canalways"doubt" and cannot be refuted by anything but
      experience), one of those remarks that put the blame on the
      wrong shoulders.

It is Rodzyanko and Co., it is the bourgeoisie that are
      preparing the famine and speculating on strangling the
      revolution by famine. There is no escaping the famine andthere can be noneexcept by an uprising of the peasants
      against the landowners in the countryside and by a victory of
      the workers over the capitalists in the cities and Petrograd and
      Moscow. There isno other wayto get grain from the
      rich, or to transport it despite their sabotage, or to break the
      resistance of the corrupt employees and the capitalist
      profiteers, or to establish strict accounting. The history of
      the supply organisations and of the food difficulties of the
      "democracy" with its millions ofcomplaintsagainst the
      sabotage of the capitalists, with itswhimperingandsupplicationis proof of this.

There is no power on earth apart from the power of a victorious
      proletarian revolution that would advance from complaints and
      begging and tears torevolutionary action. And the
      longer the proletarian revolution is delayed, the longer it is
      put off by events or by the vacillations of the 
      wavering and confused, the more victims it will claim and the
      more difficult it will be toorganisethe
      transportation and distribution of food.

"In insurrection delay is fatal" this is our answer to those
      having the sad "courage" to look at the growing economic ruin,
      at the approaching famine, and stilldissuadethe
      workers from the uprising (that is,persuade them
      to wait and place confidence in the bourgeoisie for some further
      time).

"There is not yet any danger at the front either. Even if the
      soldiers conclude an armistice themselves, it is still not a
      calamity."

But the soldiers will not conclude an armistice. For this state
      power is necessary and that cannot be obtained without an
      uprising. The soldiers will simplydesert. Reports from
      the front tell that. We must not wait because of the risk of
      aiding collusion between Rodzyanko and Wilhelm and the risk ofcompleteeconomic ruin, with the soldiers deserting in
      masses, once they (being already close to desperation)
      sink into absolute despair and leave everything to the mercy of
      fate.

"But if we take power, and obtain neither an armistice nor a
      democratic peace, the soldiers may not be willing to fight a
      revolutionary war. What then?"

An argument which brings to mind the saying: one fool can ask
      ten times more questions than ten wise men can answer.

We have never denied the difficulties ofthose in powerduring an imperialist war. Nevertheless, we have alwayspreachedthe dictatorship of the proletariat and the
      poor peasantry. Shall we renounce this, when the moment to act
      has arrived?

We have always said that the dictatorship of the proletariat in
      one country creates gigantic changes in the international
      situation, in the economic life of the country, in the condition
      of the army and in its mood—shall we now "forget" all this,
      and allow ourselves to be frightened by the "difficulties" of
      the revolution?

"As everybody reports, the masses are not in a mood that would
      drive them into the streets. Among the signs justifying
      pessimism may be mentioned the greatly increasing circulation of
      the pogromist and Black-Hundred press."

When people allow themselves to be frightened by the
      bourgeoisie, all objects and phenomena naturally appear yellow
      to them. First, they substitute an impressionist,
      intellectualist criterion for the Marxist criterion of the
      movement; theysubstitutesubjective impressions of
      moodsfora political analysis of the development of
      the class struggle and of the course of events in the entire
      country against the entire international background. They
      "conveniently" forget, of course, that a firm party line, its
      unyielding resolve, is also a mood-creatingfactor,
      particularly at the sharpest revolutionary moments. It is
      sometimes very "convenient" for people to forget that the
      responsible leaders, by their vacillations and by their
      readiness to burn their yesterday's idols, cause the most
      unbecoming vacillations in the mood of certain strata of the
      masses.

Secondly—and this is at present the main thing—in
      speaking about the mood of the masses, the spineless people
      forget to add:

that "everybody" reports it as a tense and expectant mood;

that "everybody" agrees that, called upon by the Soviets for the
      defence of the Soviets, the workers will rise to a man;

that "everybody" agrees that the workers are greatly
      dissatisfied with the indecision of the centres concerning the
      "last decisive struggle", the inevitability of which they
      clearly recognise;

that "everybody" unanimously characterises the mood of the
      broadest masses as close to desperation and points to the
      anarchy developing therefrom;

that "everybody" also recognises that there is among the
      class-conscious workers a definite unwillingness to go out into
      the streetsonlyfor demonstrations,onlyfor
      partial struggles, since a general and not a partial struggle is
      in the air, while the hopelessness of individual strikes,
      demonstra tions and acts to influence the authorities has been
      seen and is fully realised.

And so forth.

If we approach this characterisation of the mass mood from the
      point of view of the entire development of the class and
      political struggle and of the entire course of events during the
      six months of our revolution, it will become clear to us how
      people frightened by the bourgeoisie are distorting the
      question. Things are not as they were before April 20-21, June
      9, July 3, for then it was a matter ofspontaneous
      excitementwhich we, as a party, either failed to
      comprehend (April 20) or held back and shaped into a peaceful
      demonstration (June 9 and July 3), for we knew very well at that
      time that the Soviets werenot yetours, that the
      peasantsstilltrusted the Lieberdan-Chernov and not
      the Bolshevik course (uprising), that consequently we could not
      have the majority of the people behind us, and that consequently
      the uprising would be premature.

At that time the majority of the class-conscious workers did not
      raise the question of the last decisive struggle at all;notone of all our Party units would have raised it at
      that time. As for the unenlightened and very broad masses, there
      was neither a concerted effort nor the resolve born out of
      despair; there was only a spontaneousexcitementwith
      the naïve hope of "influencing" Kerensky and the bourgeoisie by
      "action", by a demonstration pure and simple.

What is needed for an uprising is not this, but, on the one
      hand, a conscious, firm and unswerving resolve on the part of
      the class-conscious elements to fight to the end; and on the
      other, a mood of despair among the broad masses whofeelthat nothing can now be saved by half-measures;
      that you cannot "influence" anybody; that the hungry will "smash
      everything, destroy everything, even anarchically",ifthe Bolsheviks are not able to lead them in a decisive battle.

The development of the revolution has in practice broughtboththe workersandthe peasantry to
      precisely this combination of a tense mood resulting from
      experience among the class-conscious and a mood of hatred
      towards those using the lockout weapon and the capitalists that
      is close to despair among the broadest masses.

We can also understand the "success" on this very soil of the
      scoundrels of the reactionary press who imitate Bolshevism. The
      malicious glee of the reactionaries at the approach of a
      decisive battle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat has
      been observed in all revolutions without exception; it has
      always been so, and it is absolutely unavoidable. And if you
      allow yourselves to be frightened bythiscircumstance,
      then you have to renounce not only the uprising but the
      proletarian revolution in general. For in a capitalist society
      this revolutioncannotmaturewithoutbeing
      accompanied by malicious glee on the part of the reaction arises
      and by hopes that they would be able to feather their nest in
      this way.

The class-conscious workers know perfectly well that the Black
      Hundreds work hand in hand with the bourgeoisie, and that a
      decisive victory of the workers (in which the petty bourgeoisie
      do not believe, which the capitalists are afraid of, which the
      Black Hundreds sometimes wish for out of sheer malice, convinced
      as they are that the Bolsheviks cannot retain power)—that
      this victory will completelycrushthe Black Hundreds,
      that the Bolshevikswill be ableto retain power firmly
      and to the greatest advantage of all humanity tortured and
      tormented by the war.

Indeed, is there anybody in his senses who can doubt that theRodzyankosand Suvorins are acting in concert, that the
      roles have been distributed among them?

Has it not been proved by facts that Kerensky acts on
      Rodzyanko's orders, while the State Printing Press of the
      Russian Republic (don't laugh!) prints the Black-Hundred
      speeches of reactionaries in the "Duma" at the expense of the
      state. Has not this fact been exposedevenby the
      lackeys fromDyelo Naroda, who serve "their own
      mannikin"? Has not the experience ofallelections
      proved that the Cadet lists were fully supported byNovoye
      Vremya,  which is a venal paper controlled by the
      "interests" of the tsarist landowners?

Did we not read yesterday that commercial and industrial
      capitalists (non-partisan capitalists, of course; oh,
      non-partisan capitalists, to be sure, for the Vikhlayevs and
      Rakitnikovs, the Gvozdyovs and Nikitins are not in coalition
      with the Cadets—God forbid—but withnon-partisancommercial and industrial circles!) have
      donated the goodly sum of 300,000 rubles to the Cadets?

The whole Black-Hundred press, if we look at things from a class
      and not a sentimental point of view, is abranchof the firm "Ryabushinsky, Milyukov, and Co.". Capitalists buy,
      on the one hand, the Milyukovs, Zaslavskys, Potresovs, and so
      on; on the other, the Black Hundreds.

Thevictory of the proletariatis the only means of
      putting an end to this most hideous poisoning of the people by
      the cheap Black-Hundred venom.

Is it any wonder that the crowd, tired out and made wretched by
      hunger and the prolongation of the war, clutches at the
      Black-Hundred poison? Can one imagine a capitalist society on
      the eve of collapse in which the oppressed masses arenotdesperate? Is there any doubt that the desperation
      of the masses, a large part of whom are still ignorant,willexpress itself in the increased consumption of all
      sorts of poison?

Those who, in arguing about the mood of the masses, blame the
      masses for their own personal spinelessness, are in a hopeless
      position. The masses are divided into those who are consciously
      biding their time and those who unconsciously are ready to sink
      into despair; but the masses of the oppressed and the hungry arenotspineless.

"On the other hand, the Marxist party cannot reduce the question
      of an uprising to that of a military conspiracy. . . ."

Marxism is an extremely profound and many-sided doctrine. It is,
      therefore, no wonder that scraps of quotations from
      Marx—especially when the quotations are made
      inappropriately—can always be found among the "arguments"
      of those who break with Marxism. Military conspiracy is
      Blanquism,ifit is organised not by a party of a
      definite class,ifits organisers have not analysed the
      political moment in general and the international situation in
      particular,ifthe party has not on its side the
      sympathy of the majority of the people, as proved by objective
      facts,ifthe development of revolutionary events has
      not brought about a practical refutation of the conciliatory
      illusions of the petty bourgeoisie,ifthe majority of
      the Soviet-type organs of revolutionary struggle that have been
      recognised as authoritative or have shown themselves to be such
      in practice have not been won over,ifthere has not
      matured a sentiment in the army (if in war-time) against the
      government that protracts the unjust war against the will of the
      whole people,ifthe slogans of the uprising (like "All
      power to the Soviets" "Land to the peasants", or "Immediate
      offer of a democratic peace to all the belligerent nations, with
      an immediate abrogation of all secret treaties and secret
      diplomacy", etc.) have not become widely known and popular,ifthe advanced workers are not sure of the desperate
      situation of the masses and of the support of the countryside, a
      support proved by a serious peasant movement or by an uprising
      against the landowners and the government that defends the
      landowners,ifthe country's economic situation
      inspires earnest hopes for a favourable solution of the crisis
      by peaceable and parliannentary means.

This is probably enough.

In my pamphlet entitled:Can the Bolsheviks
      Retain State Power?(I hope it will appear in a day or
      two), there is a quotation from Marx which really bears upon the
      question of insurrection and which enumerates the features of
      insurrection as an "art".

I am ready to wager that if we were to propose to all those
      chatterers in Russia who are now shouting against a military
      conspiracy, to open their mouths and explain the difference
      between the "art" of an insurrection and a military conspiracy
      that deserves condemnation, they would either repeat what was
      quoted above or would cover themselves, with shame and would
      call forth the general ridicule of the workers. Why not try, my
      dear would-be Marxists! Sing us a songagainst"military conspiracy"!

The above lines had been written when I received, at eight
      o'clock Tuesday evening, the morning Petrograd papers; there was
      an article by Mr. V. Bazarov inNovaya
      Zhizn. Mr. V. Bazarov asserts that "a handwritten manifesto
      was distributed in the city, in which arguments were presented
      in the name of two eminent Bolsheviks, against immediate
      action".

If this is true, I beg the comrades, whom this letter cannot
      reach earlier than Wednesday noon, topublish itas
      quickly as possible.

I did not write it for the press; I wanted to talk to the
      members of our Party by letter. But we cannot remain silent when
      the heroes ofNovaya Zhizn, who do not belong to the
      Party and who have been ridiculed by it a thousand times for
      their contemptible spinelessness (they voted for the Bolsheviks
      the day before yesterday, for the Mensheviks yesterday, and whoalmostunited them at the world-famous unity
      congress)—when such individuals receive amanifestofrom members of our Party in which they carry
      on propaganda against an uprising. We must agitate alsoin
      favourof an uprising. Let the anonymous individuals come
      right out into the light of day, and let them bear the
      punishment they deserve for their shameful vacillations, even if
      it be only the ridicule of all class-conscious workers. I have
      at my disposal only one hour before I send the present letter to
      Petrograd, and I therefore can say only a word or two about one
      of the "methods" of the sad heroes of the brainlessNovaya
      Zhizntrend. Mr. V. Bazarov attempts to polemise against
      Comrade Ryazanov, who has said, and who is a thousand times
      correct in saying, that "all those who create in the masses a
      mood of despair and indifference are preparing an uprising".

The sad hero of a sad cause "rejoins" as follows:

"Have despair and indifference ever conquered?"

O contemptible fools fromNovaya Zhizn! Do they know
      such examples of uprising in history, in which the masses of the
      oppressed classes were victorious in a desperate battle without
      having been reduced to despair by long sufferings and by an
      extreme sharpening of all sorts of crises, in which those masses
      had not been seized by indifference towards various lackey-like
      pre-parliaments, towards idle playing at revolution, towards the
      Lieberdans' reduction of the Soviets from organs of power and
      uprising to empty talking shops?

Or have the contemptible little fools fromNovaya Zhiznperhaps discovered among the masses an indifference—to the
      question of bread, to the prolongation of the war, to and for
      the peasants?

[1]A
      reference to the enlarged Central Committee meeting on October
      16 (29), 1917. Lenin remained in hiding in Petrograd and changed
      the date of the meeting to October 15 (28) in order to conceal
      his presence at the meeting, for reasons of secrecy he referred
      to a comrade who had allegedly informed him of the meeting.

[2]The
      peasant movement in Tambov Gubernia in September 1917 assumed
      great proportions: the peasants seized tracts of landed estates,
      destroyed and burned landowners' mansions and confiscated grain
      stocks. In September, 82 landowners' estatas were destroyed in
      68 gubernias and regions, including 32 in Tambov Gubernia
      . Altogether there is a record of 166 peasant manifestations in
      the gubernia, especially in Kozlov Uyezd. The frightened
      landowners took their grain to the railway stations in an effort
      to sell it, so that the railway junctures were literally swamped
      with grain. The commanding officer of the Moscow Military
      District sent military units to Tambov Gubernia to crush the
      peasant uprising, and imposed martial law, but the peasants'
      revolutionary struggle for land continued to grow in scope.